RUSS BRANDON OUT

[Eleven]

The two of them are about the same age. Here's what he has posted to his LinkedIn -- it's a varied and impressive career in sports management:

 

I joined the Golden Knights after spending 13 years with the National Basketball Association's Cleveland Cavaliers and Quicken Loans Arena organization. Since 2013, I was the franchise’s President of Business Operations, where I was responsible for the oversight of ticket and suite sales; corporate sponsorship revenue; broadcasting, marketing and communications; fan and community engagement; digital and social engagement; and box office operations. I also served as President and Alternate Governor for all franchise property teams owned by the Cavaliers Operating Company, including the Cleveland Monsters of the American Hockey League (AHL), the Canton Charge of the NBA Development League and the Cleveland Gladiators of the Arena Football League. 

 

Prior to my tenure in Cleveland, I enjoyed successful runs with multiple teams in various leagues around the country. I spent time as the Vice President of Sales for both the Carolina Hurricanes of the National Hockey League and Southwest Sports Group, which includes the Dallas Stars of the NHL and Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball. Before that, I held a variety of roles during a six-year run with the International Hockey League’s, Cleveland Lumberjacks, including: team President, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Business Operations.

 

I think we're losing sight of who the real victim here might be.

 

Ok, I'll give this:  He's as qualified as Brandon was.

 

I'll start a Kim is in thread so the Brandon bash can continue here.  Someday a mod can move the Kim posts over.

[North Buffalo]

Watching the Ping ball go back and forth. Though could care less about Brandon. Good marketer maybe.. Bad PR guy, could have so much more creative. That being said if a married man is screwing around, especially in a high profile job, he reaps what he sows. It happens on both sides. As someone else said... you dont crap where you eat. Arrogance will get you eventually. No personal inside knowledge on this one. Not gonna sit and judge the veracity of any of this. Not enough info... that being said... if any part is true incredibly stupid too not contain his zipper problem. Been a downfall of many so called smart guys.

[darksabre]

 

 

I think we're losing sight of who the real victim here might be.

John Wawrow? 

[North Buffalo]

In previous political life seen both sides of that story and manipulations on both sides of the equation. That is why it makes this kind of behavior so risky and stupid.

Edited May 2, 2018 by North Buffalo

[WildCard]

I think we're losing sight of who the real victim here might be.

Everyone reading this thread?

[darksabre]

Sorry, but who is 'they' here?

PA, etc. The token boomers in this thread who are hopelessly behind the times on these topics. 

[North Buffalo]

Everyone reading this thread?

Agreed... sigh :(

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I am going to paraphrase the statement issued by the owners ... resigned after an internal investigation into inappropriate workplace behavior ...

 

So, he basically abused is position of power in the workplace.  It could be a few things, but most often it means one thing.  The guy is a bad person and I am glad he is gone.  I wonder if the authorities are investigating, or if this is still internal?  In Canada, if I am not mistaken, workplace abuse of any kind needs to be reported to the proper authorities and not kept 'internal'.

[shrader]

It's not surprising. They steamrolled over the only female who tried to weigh in so far because in 2018 the only perspective that matters is still a man's when it comes to topics like workplace power dynamics/abuse of power, relationships, harassment, etc.

 

So of course it's cast doubt on Kim Pegula o'clock. 

 

How on earth was that a steamrolling?  Unless stuff was deleted, all I see is two posts summing up to a grand total of four sentences.  Just because they don't agree with her 100% doesn't mean they're belittling her.  The whole exchange was completely harmless.  If someone needs to be coddled that much, it goes completely against the exact message you're trying to make with what I just quoted.

[That Aud Smell]

Everyone reading this thread?

 

sorry, not sorry.

[Wyldnwoody44]

Aud, I feel ya man.

 

I recall chatting about E Kane several months ago, I had all my content removed to preserve my good standing in medicine, however, I have personal concrete evidence that he is in fact a POS, much like Russ is.

 

This place is doing now, exactly what was done then, by peeling layers and layers into this, thus increasing the temperature of this board at least 45 degrees. I understand it, this is a message board, this is what we do, we dig and theorize and many of us have been doing this for decades on here.... But know I am with you on your crusade against a very bad man.

[That Aud Smell]

How on earth was that a steamrolling?  Unless stuff was deleted, all I see is two posts summing up to a grand total of four sentences.  Just because they don't agree with her 100% doesn't mean they're belittling her.  The whole exchange was completely harmless.  If someone needs to be coddled that much, it goes completely against the exact message you're trying to make with what I just quoted.

 

Steamrolling might be strong, but I'll allow it. And agree with d4rk.

[darksabre]

How on earth was that a steamrolling?  Unless stuff was deleted, all I see is two posts summing up to a grand total of four sentences.  Just because they don't agree with her 100% doesn't mean they're belittling her.  The whole exchange was completely harmless.  If someone needs to be coddled that much, it goes completely against the exact message you're trying to make with what I just quoted.

It's about acknowledging different perspectives. Josie tried to bring a female, victim-side perspective to the discussion and was immediately told that this perspective was probably not relevant. By a bunch of dudes. That isn't harmless at all. It's exactly the problem. 

[That Aud Smell]

Aud, I feel ya man.

 

.... But know I am with you on your crusade against a very bad man.

 

I appreciate the words of support. And, please: Call me Smell.

It's about acknowledging different perspectives. Josie tried to bring a female, victim-side perspective to the discussion and was immediately told that this perspective was probably not relevant. By a bunch of dudes. That isn't harmless at all. It's exactly the problem. 

 

Those exchanges read like they'd been prepared for a script to a corporate training.

[shrader]

Aud, I feel ya man.

 

I recall chatting about E Kane several months ago, I had all my content removed to preserve my good standing in medicine, however, I have personal concrete evidence that he is in fact a POS, much like Russ is.

 

This place is doing now, exactly what was done then, by peeling layers and layers into this, thus increasing the temperature of this board at least 45 degrees. I understand it, this is a message board, this is what we do, we dig and theorize and many of us have been doing this for decades on here.... But know I am with you on your crusade against a very bad man.

 

It's a dangerous game to play though.  At times, things can be repeated so often, that wind up being perceived as the truth, even though it has never been proved.  At some point it needs to move beyond the words of a bunch of faceless names.  I have no reason to question either of you, but at some point there needs to be a bit more substantiation to any conversation like this.  I'm guessing that is coming in this case, but I'm sure that you guys can understand why people might question you.

 

The sad part is that for every thread like this one where the finger pointing is more than likely justified, there a several more where it is not.  That's why I have a hard time stomaching this stuff.

Those exchanges read like they'd been prepared for a script to a corporate training.

 

Was something deleted?  All I see is an honest question from wild card and then two responses from PA.  I just don't see any sort of attempt at putting down the woman's point of view.

[SwampD]

Does anyone know if the female was let go, as well, for inappropriate workplace behavior? That fact might change the discussion a bit.

 

In my mind there is a huge difference between a philanderer and a predator. If he's a predator, then yes, he's a bad guy. If he's a philanderer, he may or may not be a bad guy. That's between he and his wife. It's not my place to judge their relationship.

 

With that said, as president of an organization, he is that organization and everything it represents. With an owner known to value Christian family values, Brandon is at the very least an idiot and had to go.

 

I probably won't miss him.

[darksabre]

I appreciate the words of support. And, please: Call me Smell.

 

Those exchanges read like they'd been prepared for a script to a corporate training.

It just blows my mind that we have to sit here and entertain every single one of PA's contrarian arguments all day every day, but the moment one woman tries to show some compassion for potential victims, oh no. Can't have that. Someone let her know that these women might not have been victims, like she doesn't already f*cking know that this is a possibility. 

[Courier-Express]

Classic George

 

[WildCard]

Was something deleted?  All I see is an honest question from wild card and then two responses from PA.  I just don't see any sort of attempt at putting down the woman's point of view.

Liger was the only one that deleted his posts, and they were unrelated to that exchange I believe; outside of the one Josie quoted

Edited May 2, 2018 by WildCard

[That Aud Smell]

If he's a philanderer, he may or may not be a bad guy. That's between he and his wife. It's not my place to judge their relationship.

 

Um - okay.

 

I'll be clear on this, from my view: People who run around on their spouses are not people you can trust. If a person will set aside a solemn vow to their spouse, they're apt to break or forget promises or pledges they've made to you in some other context. I've seen that proven over and over again in my own life.

Edited May 2, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[SwampD]

Um - okay.

 

I'll be clear on this, from my view: People who run around on their spouses are not people you can trust. If a person will set aside a solemn vow to their spouse, they're apt to break or forget promises or pledges they've made to you in some other context. I've seen that proven over and over again in my own life.

Convenient of you not to post my next sentence.

[That Aud Smell]

Convenient of you not to post my next sentence.

 

Fixed. It changes nothing for me.

[LTS]

Well said. I'm not sure if if chauvinism or chivalry at work. I made a comment about Kim's role as president being essentially the same as Ted Black's and Russ Brandon's: sell the product. Because the comment involved a fridge, I guess, it was viewed as sexist. Of course it was.

Also well said and very fair. nfreeman likes to use the expression "fear and loathing of the wealthy" whenever the Pegulas get criticized. The opposite is in force much more often -- respect and love of the wealthy when it's hardly justified.

I don't think I misrepresented anything. You want a more humane world, then tell us to be happy that all this has happened. Be the change you want to see in the world. Or admit that you're down in the muck with the rest of us.

 

There is no one else in your muck.  You are there alone.  I said be happy he was out of the position, which was something he caused.  I did not say be happy that "all of this" has happened.  If you cannot tell the difference in that, then we are done conversing.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point(s).

 

It matters to me that Russ Brandon is a proverbial POS. The kind of person he is, and the actions he's taken, are quite relevant to what I think of him and what I think of his role as president of my hometown teams.

 

I do not consider the information on which I rely to be unproven. Far from it. The existence of a formal internal investigation report only solidifies my belief in what I've heard and learned over the years.

 

I also think you fail to apprehend that there's no clean distinction between Russ Brandon the philandering, quid pro quo'ing with sales execs (or whomever)  human POS and Russ Brandon the team president. He's the same person in both settings -- spreading his unique brand of toxicity whither he goes.

 

I haven't let it go in the past. And now that he's got his comeuppance, you're not apt to see me let it go until I've had my fill of sweet, sweet schadenfreude. 

 

I don't fail to apprehend this.  He is the same PERSON throughout all of it.  You have years of insight and information that the rest of us do not. I understand why you react the way you do on this.  My "reality" of Russ Brandon is as a guy who did very little for an organization and provided cannon fodder for this forum.  He's now been removed from his position because he engaged in an inappropriate relationship.  The definition of "inappropriate" is still up in the air as far as I know.  There were statements that he engaged in sexual harassment.  You might have more inside information to support that, but I do not have that information.  I can only react to "inapporpriate" to which I questioned... was it a relationship that by corporate policy should not occur or was it one of him exerting is influence over another employee.  For the overall impact of Russ Brandon on the organization, the definition of "inappropriate" doesn't matter because regardless of the definition, he was removed.  For the definition of who is Russ Brandon, it matters a great deal.  He's a POS, to be certain.  The question, for me, is are we adding sexual harassment to the pile or not?

 

The bottom line is that he clearly engaged in a relationship while married... and that says a lot, to me.  Clearly given the preponderance of cheating on spouses in this country it doesn't bother the general public as much.

 

I'll log off before that happens. We've been around this mulberry bush before.

 

I'm about to do that too, for a long time.  Starting to think that millbank was onto something.

 

Um - okay.

 

I'll be clear on this, from my view: People who run around on their spouses are not people you can trust. If a person will set aside a solemn vow to their spouse, they're apt to break or forget promises or pledges they've made to you in some other context. I've seen that proven over and over again in my own life.

 

We agree 100% on this.  This is why I stated I have no tolerance for those who cheat. People who can't honor their commitments are not to be trusted.

[darksabre]

It's a dangerous game to play though. At times, things can be repeated so often, that wind up being perceived as the truth, even though it has never been proved. At some point it needs to move beyond the words of a bunch of faceless names. I have no reason to question either of you, but at some point there needs to be a bit more substantiation to any conversation like this. I'm guessing that is coming in this case, but I'm sure that you guys can understand why people might question you.

 

The sad part is that for every thread like this one where the finger pointing is more than likely justified, there a several more where it is not. That's why I have a hard time stomaching this stuff.

 

 

Was something deleted? All I see is an honest question from wild card and then two responses from PA. I just don't see any sort of attempt at putting down the woman's point of view.

Wildcard at least tried to couch his language. PA's response was purely superfluous, and perhaps predictable. The only purpose it served was to invalidate Josie as a poster, not her post. All one has to do is read that post and say "Ah, perhaps there are victims here. If so, I agree." And then move on. It's not a comment that demands questioning. And yet it was questioned immediately. I wonder why?

[SwampD]

Fixed. It changes nothing for me.

I figured.

 

 

Wildcard at least tried to couch his language. PA's response was purely superfluous, and perhaps predictable. The only purpose it served was to invalidate Josie as a poster, not her post. All one has to do is read that post and say "Ah, perhaps there are victims here. If so, I agree." And then move on. It's not a comment that demands questioning. And yet it was questioned immediately. I wonder why?

Boy, I didn't get that from that exchange at all.